nortonspeed said:'Fake mains' :? As far as I can see these main bearings are not advertised as genuine FAG main bearings so I'd rather call them alternative main bearings and as long as these are made by the right specs and quality it doesn't matter where in the world they are produced. However I won't be the first one to give them a try :wink:
madass140 said:they are C3
L.A.B. said:nortonspeed said:'Fake mains' :? As far as I can see these main bearings are not advertised as genuine FAG main bearings so I'd rather call them alternative main bearings and as long as these are made by the right specs and quality it doesn't matter where in the world they are produced. However I won't be the first one to give them a try :wink:
Exactly. In order for them to be 'fake' they'd have to be marked or advertised as manufactured by FAG.
snip
So they're just cheap NJ306EMC3 bearings.
dynodave said:I see no markings as C3 and no proof otherwise as such.
rvich said:But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.
ZFD said:.....Quite a few years ago now Mick Hemmings and my local engine man Rudi noticed- independently- that the original spec was too tight all of a sudden so cranks would not turn in the crankcase. My layman explanation is that with improved manufacturing methods bearing manufacturers moved to the bottom of the clearance scale specified in DIN for the bearing. Hence we have since supplied C3 spec. Needless to say nobody else complained....
rvich said:Jim,
You are the last person on the planet that I would chose to argue with, unless it was about something along the lines of whether to use dry rub or marinade on baby back ribs. But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.
Russ
PS - I marinade mine
L.A.B. said:rvich said:But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.
very-tight-main-bearings-t23605.html#p310203
Perhaps this one where Joe said......?
ZFD said:.....Quite a few years ago now Mick Hemmings and my local engine man Rudi noticed- independently- that the original spec was too tight all of a sudden so cranks would not turn in the crankcase. My layman explanation is that with improved manufacturing methods bearing manufacturers moved to the bottom of the clearance scale specified in DIN for the bearing. Hence we have since supplied C3 spec. Needless to say nobody else complained....